« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to txt/secF7.txt
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
txt/secF7.txt
1
F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?
2
3
Of course, "anarcho"-capitalism does have historic precedents and
4
"anarcho"-capitalists spend considerable time trying to co-opt various
5
individuals into their self-proclaimed tradition of "anti-statist"
6
liberalism. That, in itself, should be enough to show that anarchism
7
and "anarcho"-capitalism have little in common as anarchism developed
8
in opposition to liberalism and its defence of capitalism.
9
Unsurprisingly, these "anti-state" liberals tended to, at best, refuse
10
to call themselves anarchists or, at worse, explicitly deny they were
11
anarchists.
12
13
One "anarcho"-capitalist overview of their tradition is presented by
14
David M. Hart. His perspective on anarchism is typical of the school,
15
noting that in his essay anarchism or anarchist "are used in the sense
16
of a political theory which advocates the maximum amount of individual
17
liberty, a necessary condition of which is the elimination of
18
governmental or other organised force." ["Gustave de Molinari and the
19
Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part I", pp. 263-290, Journal of
20
Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 3, p. 284] Yet anarchism has never
21
been solely concerned with abolishing the state. Rather, anarchists
22
have always raised economic and social demands and goals along with
23
their opposition to the state. As such, anti-statism may be a necessary
24
condition to be an anarchist, but not a sufficient one to count a
25
specific individual or theory as anarchist.
26
27
Specifically, anarchists have turned their analysis onto private
28
property noting that the hierarchical social relationships created by
29
inequality of wealth (for example, wage labour) restricts individual
30
freedom. This means that if we do seek "the maximum of individual
31
liberty" then our analysis cannot be limited to just the state or
32
government. Thus a libertarian critique of private property is an
33
essential aspect of anarchism. Consequently, to limit anarchism as Hart
34
does requires substantial rewriting of history, as can be seen from his
35
account of William Godwin.
36
37
Hart tries to co-opt of William Godwin into the ranks of "anti-state"
38
liberalism, arguing that he "defended individualism and the right to
39
property." [Op. Cit., p. 265] He, of course, quotes from Godwin to
40
support his claim yet strangely truncates Godwin's argument to exclude
41
his conclusion that "[w]hen the laws of morality shall be clearly
42
understood, their excellence universally apprehended, and themselves
43
seen to be coincident with each man's private advantage, the idea of
44
property in this sense will remain, but no man will have the least
45
desire, for purposes of ostentation or luxury, to possess more than his
46
neighbours." In other words, personal property (possession) would still
47
exist but not private property in the sense of capital or inequality of
48
wealth. For Godwin, "it follows, upon the principles of equal and
49
impartial justice, that the good things of the world are a common
50
stock, upon which one man has a valid a title as another to draw for
51
what he wants." [An Enquiry into Political Justice, p. 199 and p. 703]
52
Rather than being a liberal Godwin moved beyond that limited ideology
53
to provide the first anarchist critique of private property and the
54
authoritarian social relationships it created. His vision of a free
55
society would, to use modern terminology, be voluntary (libertarian)
56
communism.
57
58
This analysis is confirmed in book 8 of Godwin's classic work, entitled
59
"On Property." Needless to say, Hart fails to mention this analysis,
60
unsurprisingly as it was later reprinted as a socialist pamphlet.
61
Godwin thought that the "subject of property is the key-stone that
62
completes the fabric of political justice." Like Proudhon, he subjected
63
property as well as the state to an anarchist analysis. For Godwin,
64
there were "three degrees" of property. The first is possession of
65
things you need to live. The second is "the empire to which every man
66
is entitled over the produce of his own industry." The third is "that
67
which occupies the most vigilant attention in the civilised states of
68
Europe. It is a system, in whatever manner established, by which one
69
man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another
70
man's industry." He notes that it is "clear therefore that the third
71
species of property is in direct contradiction to the second." [Op.
72
Cit., p. 701 and p. 710-2] The similarities with Proudhon's classic
73
analysis of private property are obvious (and it should be stressed
74
that the two founders of the anarchist tradition independently reached
75
the same critique of private property).
76
77
Godwin, unlike classical liberals, saw the need to "point out the evils
78
of accumulated property," arguing that the "spirit of oppression, the
79
spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud . . . are the immediate
80
growth of the established administration of property. They are alike
81
hostile to intellectual and moral improvement." Thus private property
82
harms the personality and development those subjected to the
83
authoritarian social relationships it produces, for "accumulation
84
brings home a servile and truckling spirit" and such accumulated
85
property "treads the powers of thought in the dust, extinguishes the
86
sparks of genius, and reduces the great mass of mankind to be immersed
87
in sordid cares." This meant that the "feudal spirit still survives
88
that reduced the great mass of mankind to the rank of slaves and cattle
89
for the service of a few." Like the socialist movement he inspired,
90
Godwin argued that "it is to be considered that this injustice, the
91
unequal distribution of property, the grasping and selfish spirit of
92
individuals, is to be regarded as one of the original sources of
93
government, and, as it rises in its excesses, is continually demanding
94
and necessitating new injustice, new penalties and new slavery." He
95
stressed, "let it never be forgotten that accumulated property is
96
usurpation" and considered the evils produced by monarchies, courts,
97
priests, and criminal laws to be "imbecile and impotent compared to the
98
evils that arise out of the established administration of property."
99
[Op. Cit., p. 732, p. 725, p. 730, p. 726, pp. 717-8, p. 718 and p.
100
725]
101
102
Unsurprisingly given this analysis, Godwin argued against the current
103
system of property and in favour of "the justice of an equal
104
distribution of the good things of life." This would be based on
105
"[e]quality of conditions, or, in other words, an equal admission to
106
the means of improvement and pleasure" as this "is a law rigorously
107
enjoined upon mankind by the voice of justice." [Op. Cit., p. 725 and
108
p. 736] Thus his anarchist ideas were applied to private property,
109
noting like subsequent anarchists that economic inequality resulted in
110
the loss of liberty for the many and, consequently, an anarchist
111
society would see a radical change in property and property rights. As
112
Kropotkin noted, Godwin "stated in 1793 in a quite definite form the
113
political and economic principle of Anarchism." Little wonder he, like
114
so many others, argued that Godwin was "the first theoriser of
115
Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism."
116
[Environment and Evolution, p. 62 and p. 26] For Kropotkin, anarchism
117
was by definition not restricted to purely political issues but also
118
attacked economic hierarchy, inequality and injustice. As Peter
119
Marshall confirms, "Godwin's economics, like his politics, are an
120
extension of his ethics." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 210]
121
122
Godwin's theory of property is significant because it prefigured what
123
was to become standard nineteenth century socialist thought on the
124
matter. In Britain, his ideas influenced Robert Owen and, as a result,
125
the early socialist movement in that country. His analysis of property,
126
as noted, was identical to and predated Proudhon's classic anarchist
127
analysis. As such, to state, as Hart did, that Godwin simply "concluded
128
that the state was an evil which had to be reduced in power if not
129
eliminated completely" while not noting his analysis of property gives
130
a radically false presentation of his ideas. [Op. Cit., p. 265]
131
However, it does fit into his flawed assertion that anarchism is purely
132
concerned with the state. Any evidence to the contrary is simply
133
ignored.
134
135
F.7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?
136
137
No, of course not. Yet according to "anarcho"-capitalism, it is. This
138
can be seen from the ideas of Gustave de Molinari.
139
140
Hart is on firmer ground when he argues that the 19th century French
141
economist Gustave de Molinari is the true founder of
142
"anarcho"-capitalism. With Molinari, he argues, "the two different
143
currents of anarchist thought converged: he combined the political
144
anarchism of Burke and Godwin with the nascent economic anarchism of
145
Adam Smith and Say to create a new forms of anarchism" that has been
146
called "anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism." [Op. Cit., p.
147
269] Of course, Godwin (like other anarchists) did not limit his
148
anarchism purely to "political" issues and so he discussed "economic
149
anarchism" as well in his critique of private property (as Proudhon
150
also did). As such, to artificially split anarchism into political and
151
economic spheres is both historically and logically flawed. While some
152
dictionaries limit "anarchism" to opposition to the state, anarchists
153
did and do not.
154
155
The key problem for Hart is that Molinari refused to call himself an
156
anarchist. He did not even oppose government, as Hart himself notes
157
Molinari proposed a system of insurance companies to provide defence of
158
property and "called these insurance companies 'governments' even
159
though they did not have a monopoly within a given geographical area."
160
As Hart notes, Molinari was the sole defender of such free-market
161
justice at the time in France. [David M. Hart, "Gustave de Molinari and
162
the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part II", pp. 399-434, Journal of
163
Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 4, p. 415 and p. 411] Molinari was
164
clear that he wanted "a regime of free government," counterpoising
165
"monopolist or communist governments" to "free governments." This would
166
lead to "freedom of government" rather than its abolition (i.e., not
167
freedom from government). For Molinari the future would not bring "the
168
suppression of the state which is the dream of the anarchists . . . It
169
will bring the diffusion of the state within society. That is . . . 'a
170
free state in a free society.'" [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 429, p.
171
411 and p. 422] As such, Molinari can hardly be considered an
172
anarchist, even if "anarchist" is limited to purely being against
173
government.
174
175
Moreover, in another sense Molinari was in favour of the state. As we
176
discuss in [1]section F.6, these companies would have a monopoly within
177
a given geographical area -- they have to in order to enforce the
178
property owner's power over those who use, but do not own, the property
179
in question. The key contradiction can be seen in Molinari's advocating
180
of company towns, privately owned communities (his term was a
181
"proprietary company"). Instead of taxes, people would pay rent and the
182
"administration of the community would be either left in the hands of
183
the company itself or handled special organisations set up for this
184
purpose." Within such a regime "those with the most property had
185
proportionally the greater say in matters which affected the
186
community." If the poor objected then they could simply leave. [Op.
187
Cit., pp. 421-2 and p. 422]
188
189
Given this, the idea that Molinari was an anarchist in any form can be
190
dismissed. His system was based on privatising government, not
191
abolishing it (as he himself admitted). This would be different from
192
the current system, of course, as landlords and capitalists would be
193
hiring police directly to enforce their decisions rather than relying
194
on a state which they control indirectly. This system would not be
195
anarchist as can be seen from American history. There capitalists and
196
landlords created their own private police forces and armies, which
197
regularly attacked and murdered union organisers and strikers. As an
198
example, there is Henry Ford's Service Department (private police
199
force):
200
201
"In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march up to
202
the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn. . . The machine guns of the
203
Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company's Service Department
204
killed [four] and wounded over a score of others. . . Ford was
205
fundamentally and entirely opposed to trade unions. The idea of
206
working men questioning his prerogatives as an owner was outrageous
207
. . . [T]he River Rouge plant. . . was dominated by the autocratic
208
regime of Bennett's service men. Bennett . . organise[d] and
209
train[ed] the three and a half thousand private policemen employed
210
by Ford. His task was to maintain discipline amongst the work force,
211
protect Ford's property [and power], and prevent unionisation. . .
212
Frank Murphy, the mayor of Detroit, claimed that 'Henry Ford employs
213
some of the worst gangsters in our city.' The claim was well based.
214
Ford's Service Department policed the gates of his plants,
215
infiltrated emergent groups of union activists, posed as workers to
216
spy on men on the line. . . Under this tyranny the Ford worker had
217
no security, no rights. So much so that any information about the
218
state of things within the plant could only be freely obtained from
219
ex-Ford workers." [Huw Beynon, Working for Ford, pp. 29-30]
220
221
The private police attacked women workers handing out pro-union
222
leaflets and gave them "a severe beating." At Kansas and Dallas
223
"similar beatings were handed out to the union men." This use of
224
private police to control the work force was not unique. General Motors
225
"spent one million dollars on espionage, employing fourteen detective
226
agencies and two hundred spies at one time [between 1933 and 1936]. The
227
Pinkerton Detective Agency found anti-unionism its most lucrative
228
activity." [Op. Cit., p. 34 and p. 32] We must also note that the
229
Pinkerton's had been selling their private police services for decades
230
before the 1930s. For over 60 years the Pinkerton Detective Agency had
231
"specialised in providing spies, agent provocateurs, and private armed
232
forces for employers combating labour organisations." By 1892 it "had
233
provided its services for management in seventy major labour disputes,
234
and its 2,000 active agents and 30,000 reserves totalled more than the
235
standing army of the nation." [Jeremy Brecher, Strike!, p. 55] With
236
this force available, little wonder unions found it so hard to survive
237
in the USA.
238
239
Only an "anarcho"-capitalist would deny that this is a private
240
government, employing private police to enforce private power. Given
241
that unions could be considered as "defence" agencies for workers, this
242
suggests a picture of how "anarcho"-capitalism may work in practice
243
radically different from than that produced by its advocates. The
244
reason is simple, it does not ignore inequality and subjects property
245
to an anarchist analysis. Little wonder, then, that Proudhon stressed
246
that it "becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into
247
democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of
248
a relapse into feudalism." Anarchism, in other words, would see
249
"[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere, the
250
wage system abolished" and so "the economic organisation [would]
251
replac[e] the governmental and military system." [The General Idea of
252
the Revolution, p. 227 and p. 281] Clearly, the idea that Proudhon
253
shared the same political goal as Molinari is a joke. He would have
254
dismissed such a system as little more than an updated form of
255
feudalism in which the property owner is sovereign and the workers
256
subjects (also see [2]section B.4).
257
258
Unsurprisingly, Molinari (unlike the individualist anarchists) attacked
259
the jury system, arguing that its obliged people to "perform the duties
260
of judges. This is pure communism." People would "judge according to
261
the colour of their opinions, than according to justice." [quoted by
262
Hart, Op. Cit., p. 409] As the jury system used amateurs (i.e. ordinary
263
people) rather than full-time professionals it could not be relied upon
264
to defend the power and property rights of the rich. As we noted in
265
[3]section F.6.1, Rothbard criticised the individualist anarchists for
266
supporting juries for essentially the same reasons.
267
268
But, as is clear from Hart's account, Molinari had little concern that
269
working class people should have a say in their own lives beyond
270
consuming goods and picking bosses. His perspective can be seen from
271
his lament that in those "colonies where slavery has been abolished
272
without the compulsory labour being replaced with an equivalent
273
quantity of free [sic!] labour [i.e., wage labour], there has occurred
274
the opposite of what happens everyday before our eyes. Simple workers
275
have been seen to exploit in their turn the industrial entrepreneurs,
276
demanding from them wages which bear absolutely no relation to the
277
legitimate share in the product which they ought to receive. The
278
planters were unable to obtain for their sugar a sufficient price to
279
cover the increase in wages, and were obliged to furnish the extra
280
amount, at first out of their profits, and then out of their very
281
capital. A considerable number of planters have been ruined as a result
282
. . . It is doubtless better that these accumulations of capital should
283
be destroyed than that generations of men should perish [Marx: 'how
284
generous of M. Molinari'] but would it not be better if both survived?"
285
[quoted by Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 937f]
286
287
So workers exploiting capital is the "opposite of what happens everyday
288
before our eyes"? In other words, it is normal that entrepreneurs
289
"exploit" workers under capitalism? Similarly, what is a "legitimate
290
share" which workers "ought to receive"? Surely that is determined by
291
the eternal laws of supply and demand and not what the capitalists (or
292
Molinari) thinks is right? And those poor former slave drivers, they
293
really do deserve our sympathy. What horrors they face from the
294
impositions subjected upon them by their ex-chattels -- they had to
295
reduce their profits! How dare their ex-slaves refuse to obey them in
296
return for what their ex-owners think was their "legitimate share in
297
the produce"! How "simple" these workers were, not understanding the
298
sacrifices their former masters suffer nor appreciating how much more
299
difficult it is for their ex-masters to create "the product" without
300
the whip and the branding iron to aid them! As Marx so rightly
301
comments: "And what, if you please, is this 'legitimate share', which,
302
according to [Molinari's] own admission, the capitalist in Europe daily
303
neglects to pay? Over yonder, in the colonies, where the workers are so
304
'simple' as to 'exploit' the capitalist, M. Molinari feels a powerful
305
itch to use police methods to set on the right road that law of supply
306
and demand which works automatically everywhere else." [Op. Cit., p.
307
937f]
308
309
An added difficulty in arguing that Molinari was an anarchist is that
310
he was a contemporary of Proudhon, the first self-declared anarchist,
311
and lived in a country with a vigorous anarchist movement. Surely if he
312
was really an anarchist, he would have proclaimed his kinship with
313
Proudhon and joined in the wider movement. He did not, as Hart notes as
314
regards Proudhon:
315
316
"their differences in economic theory were considerable, and it is
317
probably for this reason that Molinari refused to call himself an
318
anarchist in spite of their many similarities in political theory.
319
Molinari refused to accept the socialist economic ideas of Proudhon
320
. . . in Molinari's mind, the term 'anarchist' was intimately linked
321
with socialist and statist economic views." [Op. Cit., p. 415]
322
323
Yet Proudhon's economic views, like Godwin's, flowed from his anarchist
324
analysis and principles. They cannot be arbitrarily separated as Hart
325
suggests. So while arguing that "Molinari was just as much an anarchist
326
as Proudhon," Hart forgets the key issue. Proudhon was aware that
327
private property ensured that the proletarian did not exercise
328
"self-government" during working hours, i.e. that he was ruled by
329
another. As for Hart claiming that Proudhon had "statist economic
330
views" it simply shows how far an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective is
331
from genuine anarchism. Proudhon's economic analysis, his critique of
332
private property and capitalism, flowed from his anarchism and was an
333
integral aspect of it.
334
335
By restricting anarchism purely to opposition to the state, Hart is
336
impoverishing anarchist theory and denying its history. Given that
337
anarchism was born from a critique of private property as well as
338
government, this shows the false nature of Hart's claim that "Molinari
339
was the first to develop a theory of free-market, proprietary anarchism
340
that extended the laws of the market and a rigorous defence of property
341
to its logical extreme." [Op. Cit., p. 415 and p. 416] Hart shows how
342
far from anarchism Molinari was as Proudhon had turned his anarchist
343
analysis to property, showing that "defence of property" lead to the
344
oppression of the many by the few in social relationships identical to
345
those which mark the state. Moreover, Proudhon, argued the state would
346
always be required to defend such social relations. Privatising it
347
would hardly be a step forward.
348
349
Unsurprisingly, Proudhon dismissed the idea that the laissez faire
350
capitalists shared his goals. "The school of Say," Proudhon argued, was
351
"the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits" and "has
352
for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the
353
execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessities, deepening
354
more and more the obscurity of a science [economics] naturally
355
difficult and full of complications" (much the same can be said of
356
"anarcho"-capitalists, incidentally). For Proudhon, "the disciples of
357
Malthus and of Say, who oppose with all their might any intervention of
358
the State in matters commercial or industrial, do not fail to avail
359
themselves of this seemingly liberal attitude, and to show themselves
360
more revolutionary than the Revolution. More than one honest searcher
361
has been deceived thereby." However, this apparent "anti-statist"
362
attitude of supporters of capitalism is false as pure free market
363
capitalism cannot solve the social question, which arises because of
364
capitalism itself. As such, it was impossible to abolish the state
365
under capitalism. Thus "this inaction of Power in economic matters was
366
the foundation of government. What need should we have of a political
367
organisation, if Power once permitted us to enjoy economic order?"
368
Instead of capitalism, Proudhon advocated the "constitution of Value,"
369
the "organisation of credit," the elimination of interest, the
370
"establishment of workingmen's associations" and "the use of a just
371
price." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 225, p. 226 and p. 233]
372
373
Clearly, then, the claims that Molinari was an anarchist fail as he,
374
unlike his followers, was aware of what anarchism actually stood for.
375
Hart, in his own way, acknowledges this:
376
377
"In spite of his protestations to the contrary, Molinari should be
378
considered an anarchist thinker. His attack on the state's monopoly
379
of defence must surely warrant the description of anarchism. His
380
reluctance to accept this label stemmed from the fact that the
381
socialists had used it first to describe a form of non-statist
382
society which Molinari definitely opposed. Like many original
383
thinkers, Molinari had to use the concepts developed by others to
384
describe his theories. In his case, he had come to the same
385
political conclusions as the communist anarchists although he had
386
been working within the liberal tradition, and it is therefore not
387
surprising that the terms used by the two schools were not
388
compatible. It would not be until the latter half of the twentieth
389
century that radical, free-trade liberals would use the word
390
'anarchist' to describe their beliefs." [Op. Cit., p. 416]
391
392
It should be noted that Proudhon was not a communist-anarchist, but the
393
point remains (as an aside, Rothbard also showed his grasp of anarchism
394
by asserting that "the demented Bakunin" was a "leading
395
anarcho-communist," who "emphasised [the lumpenproletariat] in the
396
1840s." [The Logic of Action II, p. 388 and p. 381] Which would have
397
been impressive as not only did Bakunin become an anarchist in the
398
1860s, anarcho-communism, as anyone with even a basic knowledge of
399
anarchist history knows, developed after his death nor did Bakunin
400
emphasise the lumpenproletariat as the agent of social change,
401
Rothbardian and Marxian inventions not withstanding). The aims of
402
anarchism were recognised by Molinari as being inconsistent with his
403
ideology. Consequently, he (rightly) refused the label. If only his
404
self-proclaimed followers in the "latter half of the twentieth century"
405
did the same then anarchists would not have to bother with them!
406
407
It does seem ironic that the founder of "anarcho"-capitalism should
408
have come to the same conclusion as modern day anarchists on the
409
subject of whether his ideas are a form of anarchism or not!
410
411
F.7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?
412
413
Of course not, but ironically this is the conclusion arrived at by
414
Hart's analyst of the British "voluntaryists," particularly Auberon
415
Herbert. Voluntaryism was a fringe part of the right-wing individualist
416
movement inspired by Herbert Spencer, a leading spokesman for free
417
market capitalism in the later half of the nineteenth century. Like
418
Hart, leading "anarcho"-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe believes that
419
Herbert "develop[ed] the Spencerian idea of equal freedom to its
420
logically consistent anarcho-capitalist end." [Anarcho-Capitalism: An
421
Annotated Bibliography]
422
423
Yet, as with Molinari, there is a problem with presenting this ideology
424
as anarchist, namely that its leading light, Herbert, explicitly
425
rejected the label "anarchist" and called for both a government and a
426
democratic state. Thus, apparently, both state and government are
427
"logically consistent" with "anarcho"-capitalism and vice versa!
428
429
Herbert was clearly aware of individualist anarchism and distanced
430
himself from it. He argued that such a system would be "pandemonium."
431
He thought that we should "not direct our attacks - as the anarchists
432
do - against all government , against government in itself" but "only
433
against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent, unreasonable and
434
indefensible forms of government, which are found everywhere today."
435
Government should be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in
436
defence of self-ownership and individual rights." He stressed that "we
437
are governmentalists . . . formally constituted by the nation,
438
employing in this matter of force the majority method." Moreover,
439
Herbert knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism, considering it
440
to be "founded on a fatal mistake." [Essay X: The Principles Of
441
Voluntaryism And Free Life] He repeated this argument in other words,
442
stating that anarchy was a "contradiction," and that the Voluntaryists
443
"reject the anarchist creed." He was clear that they "believe in a
444
national government, voluntary supported . . . and only entrusted with
445
force for protection of person and property." He called his system of a
446
national government funded by non-coerced contributions "the Voluntary
447
State." ["A Voluntaryist Appeal", Herbert Spencer and the Limits of the
448
State, Michael W. Taylor (ed.), p. 239 and p. 228] As such, claims that
449
Herbert was an anarchist cannot be justified.
450
451
Hart is aware of this slight problem, quoting Herbert's claim that he
452
aimed for "regularly constituted government, generally accepted by all
453
citizens for the protection of the individual." [quoted by Hart, Op.
454
Cit., p. 86] Like Molinari, Herbert was aware that anarchism was a form
455
of socialism and that the political aims could not be artificially
456
separated from its economic and social aims. As such, he was right not
457
to call his ideas anarchism as it would result in confusion
458
(particularly as anarchism was a much larger movement than his). As
459
Hart acknowledges, "Herbert faced the same problems that Molinari had
460
with labelling his philosophy. Like Molinari, he rejected the term
461
'anarchism,' which he associated with the socialism of Proudhon and . .
462
. terrorism." While "quite tolerant" of individualist anarchism, he
463
thought they "were mistaken in their rejections of 'government.'"
464
However, Hart knows better than Herbert about his own ideas, arguing
465
that his ideology "is in fact a new form of anarchism, since the most
466
important aspect of the modern state, the monopoly of the use of force
467
in a given area, is rejected in no uncertain terms by both men." [Op.
468
Cit., p. 86] He does mention that Benjamin Tucker called Herbert a
469
"true anarchist in everything but name," but Tucker denied that
470
Kropotkin was an anarchist suggesting that he was hardly a reliable
471
guide. [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 87] As it stands, it seems that
472
Tucker (unlike other anarchists) was mistaken in his evaluation of
473
Herbert's politics.
474
475
While there were similarities between Herbert's position and
476
individualist anarchism, "the gulf" between them "in other respects was
477
unbridgeable" notes historian Matthew Thomas. "The primary concern of
478
the individualists was with the preservation of existing property
479
relations and the maintenance of some form of organisation to protect
480
these relations. . . Such a vestigial government was obviously
481
incompatible with the individualist anarchist desire to abolish the
482
state. The anarchists also demanded sweeping changes in the structure
483
of property relations through the destruction of the land and currency
484
monopolies. This they argued, would create equal opportunities for all.
485
The individualists however rejected this and sought to defend the
486
vested interests of the property-owning classes. The implications of
487
such differences prevented any real alliance." [Anarchist Ideas and
488
Counter-Cultures in Britain, 1880-1914, p. 20] Anarchist William R.
489
McKercher, in his analysis of the libertarian (socialist) movement of
490
late 19th century Britain, concludes (rightly) that Herbert "was often
491
mistakenly taken as an anarchist" but "a reading of Herbert's work will
492
show that he was not an anarchist." [Freedom and Authority, p. 199fn
493
and p. 73fn] The leading British social anarchist journal of the time
494
noted that the "Auberon Herbertites in England are sometimes called
495
Anarchists by outsiders, but they are willing to compromise with the
496
inequity of government to maintain private property." [Freedom, Vol.
497
II, No. 17, 1888]
498
499
Some non-anarchists did call Herbert an anarchist. For example, J. A.
500
Hobson, a left-wing liberal, wrote a critique of Herbert's politics
501
called "A Rich Man's Anarchism." Hobson argued that Herbert's support
502
for exclusive private property would result in the poor being enslaved
503
to the rich. Herbert, "by allowing first comers to monopolise without
504
restriction the best natural supplies" would allow them "to thwart and
505
restrict the similar freedom of those who come after." Hobson gave the
506
"extreme instance" of an island "the whole of which is annexed by a few
507
individuals, who use the rights of exclusive property and transmission
508
. . . to establish primogeniture." In such a situation, the bulk of the
509
population would be denied the right to exercise their faculties or to
510
enjoy the fruits of their labour, which Herbert claimed to be the
511
inalienable rights of all. Hobson concluded: "It is thus that the
512
'freedom' of a few (in Herbert's sense) involves the 'slavery' of the
513
many." [quoted by M. W. Taylor, Men Versus the State, pp. 248-9] M. W.
514
Taylor notes that "of all the points Hobson raised . . . this argument
515
was his most effective, and Herbert was unable to provide a
516
satisfactory response." [Op. Cit., p. 249]
517
518
The ironic thing is that Hobson's critique simply echoed the anarchist
519
one and, moreover, simply repeated Proudhon's arguments in What is
520
Property?. As such, from an anarchist perspective, Herbert's inability
521
to give a reply was unsurprising given the power of Proudhon's
522
libertarian critique of private property. In fact, Proudhon used a
523
similar argument to Hobson's, presenting "a colony . . . in a wild
524
district" rather than an island. His argument and conclusions are the
525
same, though, with a small minority becoming "proprietors of the whole
526
district" and the rest "dispossessed" and "compelled to sell their
527
birthright." He concluded by saying "[i]n this century of bourgeois
528
morality . . . the moral sense is so debased that I should not be at
529
all surprised if I were asked, by many a worthy proprietor, what I see
530
in this that is unjust and illegitimate? Debased creature! galvanised
531
corpse! how can I expect to convince you, if you cannot tell robbery
532
when I show it to you?" [What is Property?, pp. 125-7] Which shows how
533
far Herbert's position was from genuine anarchism -- and how far
534
"anarcho"-capitalism is.
535
536
So, economically, Herbert was not an anarchist, arguing that the state
537
should protect Lockean property rights. Of course, Hart may argue that
538
these economic differences are not relevant to the issue of Herbert's
539
anarchism but that is simply to repeat the claim that anarchism is
540
solely concerned with government, a claim which is hard to support.
541
This position cannot be maintained, particularly given that both
542
Herbert and Molinari defended the right of capitalists and landlords to
543
force their employees and tenants to follow their orders. Their
544
"governments" existed to defend the capitalist from rebellious workers,
545
to break unions, strikes and occupations. In other words, they were a
546
monopoly of the use of force in a given area to enforce the monopoly of
547
power in a given area (namely, the wishes of the property owner). While
548
they may have argued that this was "defence of liberty," in reality it
549
is defence of power and authority.
550
551
What about if we just look at the political aspects of his ideas? Did
552
Herbert actually advocate anarchism? No, far from it. He clearly
553
demanded a minimal state based on voluntary taxation. The state would
554
not use force of any kind, "except for purposes of restraining force."
555
He argued that in his system, while "the state should compel no
556
services and exact no payments by force," it "should be free to conduct
557
many useful undertakings . . . in competition with all voluntary
558
agencies . . . in dependence on voluntary payments." [Herbert, Essay X:
559
The Principles Of Voluntaryism And Free Life] As such, "the state"
560
would remain and unless he is using the term "state" in some highly
561
unusual way, it is clear that he means a system where individuals live
562
under a single elected government as their common law maker, judge and
563
defender within a given territory.
564
565
This becomes clearer once we look at how the state would be organised.
566
In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss the
567
franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a voluntary
568
"income tax" and anyone "paying it would have the right to vote; those
569
who did not pay it would be -- as is just -- without the franchise.
570
There would be no other tax." The law would be strictly limited, of
571
course, and the "government . . . must confine itself simply to the
572
defence of life and property, whether as regards internal or external
573
defence." In other words, Herbert was a minimal statist, with his
574
government elected by a majority of those who choose to pay their
575
income tax and funded by that (and by any other voluntary taxes they
576
decided to pay). Whether individuals and companies could hire their own
577
private police in such a regime is irrelevant in determining whether it
578
is an anarchy.
579
580
This can be best seen by comparing Herbert with Ayn Rand. No one would
581
ever claim Rand was an anarchist, yet her ideas were extremely similar
582
to Herbert's. Like Herbert, Rand supported laissez-faire capitalism and
583
was against the "initiation of force." Like Herbert, she extended this
584
principle to favour a government funded by voluntary means ["Government
585
Financing in a Free Society," The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 116-20]
586
Moreover, like Herbert, she explicitly denied being an anarchist and,
587
again like Herbert, thought the idea of competing defence agencies
588
("governments") would result in chaos. The similarities with Herbert
589
are clear, yet no "anarcho"-capitalist would claim that Rand was an
590
anarchist, yet some do claim that Herbert was.
591
592
This position is, of course, deeply illogical and flows from the
593
non-anarchist nature of "anarcho"-capitalism. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
594
when Rothbard discusses the ideas of the "voluntaryists" he fails to
595
address the key issue of who determines the laws being enforced in
596
society. For Rothbard, the key issue was who is enforcing the law, not
597
where that law comes from (as long, of course, as it is a law code he
598
approved of). The implications of this is significant, as it implies
599
that "anarchism" need not be opposed to either the state nor
600
government! This can be clearly seen from Rothbard's analysis of
601
Herbert's voluntary taxation position.
602
603
Rothbard, correctly, notes that Herbert advocated voluntary taxation as
604
the means of funding a state whose basic role was to enforce Lockean
605
property rights. The key point of his critique was not who determines
606
the law but who enforces it. For Rothbard, it should be privatised
607
police and courts and he suggests that the "voluntary taxationists have
608
never attempted to answer this problem; they have rather stubbornly
609
assumed that no one would set up a competing defence agency within a
610
State's territorial limits." If the state did bar such firms, then that
611
system is not a genuine free market. However, "if the government did
612
permit free competition in defence service, there would soon no longer
613
be a central government over the territory. Defence agencies, police
614
and judicial, would compete with one another in the same uncoerced
615
manner as the producers of any other service on the market." [Power and
616
Market, p. 122 and p. 123]
617
618
Obviously this misses the point totally. What Rothbard ignores is who
619
determines the laws which these private "defence" agencies would
620
enforce. If the laws are made by a central government then the fact
621
that citizen's can hire private police and attend private courts does
622
not stop the regime being statist. We can safely assume Rand, for
623
example, would have had no problem with companies providing private
624
security guards or the hiring of private detectives within the context
625
of her minimal state. Ironically, Rothbard stresses the need for such a
626
monopoly legal system:
627
628
"While 'the government' would cease to exist, the same cannot be
629
said for a constitution or a rule of law, which, in fact, would take
630
on in the free society a far more important function than at
631
present. For the freely competing judicial agencies would have to be
632
guided by a body of absolute law to enable them to distinguish
633
objectively between defence and invasion. This law, embodying
634
elaborations upon the basic injunction to defend person and property
635
from acts of invasion, would be codified in the basic legal code.
636
Failure to establish such a code of law would tend to break down the
637
free market, for then defence against invasion could not be
638
adequately achieved." [Op. Cit., p. 123-4]
639
640
So if you violate the "absolute law" defending (absolute) property
641
rights then you would be in trouble. The problem now lies in
642
determining who sets that law. For Rothbard, as we noted in [4]section
643
F.6.1, his system of monopoly laws would be determined by judges,
644
Libertarian lawyers and jurists. The "voluntaryists" proposed a
645
different solution, namely a central government elected by the majority
646
of those who voluntarily decided to pay an income tax. In the words of
647
Herbert:
648
649
"We agree that there must be a central agency to deal with crime --
650
an agency that defends the liberty of all men, and employs force
651
against the uses of force; but my central agency rests upon
652
voluntary support, whilst Mr. Levy's central agency rests on
653
compulsory support." [quoted by Carl Watner, "The English
654
Individualists As They Appear In Liberty," pp. 191-211, Benjamin R.
655
Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, p. 194]
656
657
And all Rothbard is concerned over private cops would exist or not!
658
This lack of concern over the existence of the state and government
659
flows from the strange fact that "anarcho"-capitalists commonly use the
660
term "anarchism" to refer to any philosophy that opposes all forms of
661
initiatory coercion. Notice that government does not play a part in
662
this definition, thus Rothbard can analyse Herbert's politics without
663
commenting on who determines the law his private "defence" agencies
664
enforce. For Rothbard, "an anarchist society" is defined "as one where
665
there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the
666
person and property of any individual." He then moved onto the state,
667
defining that as an "institution which possesses one or both (almost
668
always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by
669
the physical coercion known as 'taxation'; and (2) it acquires and
670
usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defence service
671
(police and courts) over a given territorial area." [Society without a
672
State, p. 192]
673
674
This is highly unusual definition of "anarchism," given that it utterly
675
fails to mention or define government. This, perhaps, is understandable
676
as any attempt to define it in terms of "monopoly of decision-making
677
power" results in showing that capitalism is statist (see [5]section
678
F.1 for a summary). The key issue here is the term "legal possibility."
679
That suggestions a system of laws which determine what is "coercive
680
aggression" and what constitutes what is and what is not legitimate
681
"property." Herbert is considered by some "anarcho"-capitalists as one
682
of them. Which brings us to a strange conclusion that, for
683
"anarcho"-capitalists you can have a system of "anarchism" in which
684
there is a government and state -- as long as the state does not impose
685
taxation nor stop private police forces from operating!
686
687
As Rothbard argues "if a government based on voluntary taxation permits
688
free competition, the result will be the purely free-market system . .
689
. The previous government would now simply be one competing defence
690
agency among many on the market." [Power and Market, p. 124] That the
691
government is specifying what is and is not legal does not seem to
692
bother him or even cross his mind. Why should it, when the existence of
693
government is irrelevant to his definition of anarchism and the state?
694
That private police are enforcing a monopoly law determined by the
695
government seems hardly a step in the right direction nor can it be
696
considered as anarchism. Perhaps this is unsurprising, for under his
697
system there would be "a basic, common Law Code" which "all would have
698
to abide by" as well as "some way of resolving disputes that will gain
699
a majority consensus in society . . . whose decision will be accepted
700
by the great majority of the public." ["Society without a State,", p.
701
205]
702
703
That this is simply a state under a different name can be seen from
704
looking at other right-wing liberals. Milton Friedman, for example,
705
noted (correctly) that the "consistent liberal is not an anarchist." He
706
stated that government "is essential" for providing a "legal framework"
707
and provide "the definition of property rights." In other words, to
708
"determine, arbitrate and enforce the rules of the game." [Capitalism
709
and Freedom, p. 34, p. 15, p. 25, p. 26 and p. 27] For Ludwig von Mises
710
"liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with
711
anarchism." Liberalism "restricts the activity of the state in the
712
economic sphere exclusively to the protection of property."
713
[Liberalism, p. 37 and p. 38] The key difference between these liberals
714
and Rothbard's brand of liberalism is that rather than an elected
715
parliament making laws, "anarcho"-capitalism would have a general law
716
code produced by "libertarian" lawyers, jurists and judges. Both would
717
have laws interpreted by judges. Rothbard's system is also based on a
718
legal framework which would both provide a definition of property
719
rights and determine the rules of the game. However, the means of
720
enforcing and arbitrating those laws would be totally private. Yet even
721
this is hardly a difference, as it is doubtful if Friedman or von Mises
722
(like Rand or Herbert) would have barred private security firms or
723
voluntary arbitration services as long as they followed the law of the
724
land. The only major difference is that Rothbard's system explicitly
725
excludes the general public from specifying or amending the laws they
726
are subject to and allows (prosperous) judges to interpret and add to
727
the (capitalist) law. Perhaps this dispossession of the general public
728
is the only means by which the minimal state will remain minimal (as
729
Rothbard claimed) and capitalist property, authority and property
730
rights remain secure and sacrosanct, yet the situation where the
731
general public has no say in the regime and the laws they are subjected
732
to is usually called dictatorship, not "anarchy."
733
734
At least Herbert is clear that his politics was a governmental system,
735
unlike Rothbard who assumes a monopoly law but seems to think that this
736
is not a government or a state. As David Wieck argued, this is
737
illogical for according to Rothbard "all 'would have to' conform to the
738
same legal code" and this can only be achieved by means of "the
739
forceful action of adherents to the code against those who flout it"
740
and so "in his system there would stand over against every individual
741
the legal authority of all the others. An individual who did not
742
recognise private property as legitimate would surely perceive this as
743
a tyranny of law, a tyranny of the majority or of the most powerful --
744
in short, a hydra-headed state. If the law code is itself unitary, then
745
this multiple state might be said to have properly a single head -- the
746
law . . . But it looks as though one might still call this 'a state,'
747
under Rothbard's definition, by satisfying de facto one of his pair of
748
sufficient conditions: 'It asserts and usually obtains a coerced
749
monopoly of provision of defence service (police and courts) over a
750
given territorial area' . . . Hobbes's individual sovereign would seem
751
to have become many sovereigns -- with but one law, however, and in
752
truth, therefore, a single sovereign in Hobbes's more important sense
753
of the latter term. One might better, and less confusingly, call this a
754
libertarian state than an anarchy." [Anarchist Justice, pp. 216-7]
755
756
The obvious recipients of the coercion of the new state would be those
757
who rejected the authority of their bosses and landlords, those who
758
reject the Lockean property rights Rothbard and Herbert hold dear. In
759
such cases, the rebels and any "defence agency" (like, say, a union)
760
which defended them would be driven out of business as it violated the
761
law of the land. How this is different from a state banning competing
762
agencies is hard to determine. This is a "difficulty" argues Wieck,
763
which "results from the attachment of a principle of private property,
764
and of unrestricted accumulation of wealth, to the principle of
765
individual liberty. This increases sharply the possibility that many
766
reasonable people who respect their fellow men and women will find
767
themselves outside the law because of dissent from a property
768
interpretation of liberty." Similarly, there are the economic results
769
of capitalism. "One can imagine," Wieck continues, "that those who lose
770
out badly in the free competition of Rothbard's economic system,
771
perhaps a considerable number, might regard the legal authority as an
772
alien power, a state for them, based on violence, and might be quite
773
unmoved by the fact that, just as under nineteenth century capitalism,
774
a principle of liberty was the justification for it all." [Op. Cit., p.
775
217 and pp. 217-8]
776
777
F.7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?
778
779
In a word, no. This can be seen from "anarcho"-capitalism itself as
780
well as its attempts to co-opt the US individualist anarchists into its
781
family tree.
782
783
Hart mentions the individualist anarchists, calling Tucker's ideas
784
"laissez faire liberalism." [Op. Cit., p. 87] However, Tucker called
785
his ideas "socialism" and presented a left-wing critique of most
786
aspects of liberalism, particularly its Lockean based private property
787
rights. Tucker based much of his ideas on property on Proudhon, so if
788
Hart dismisses the latter as a socialist then this must apply to Tucker
789
as well. Given that he notes that there are "two main kinds of
790
anarchist thought," namely "communist anarchism which denies the right
791
of an individual to seek profit, charge rent or interest and to own
792
property" and a "'right-wing' proprietary anarchism, which vigorously
793
defends these rights" then Tucker, like Godwin, would have to be placed
794
in the "left-wing" camp. ["Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist
795
Liberal Tradition: Part II", Op. Cit., p. 427] Tucker, after all,
796
argued that he aimed for the end of profit, interest and rent and
797
attacked private property in land and housing beyond "occupancy and
798
use." It is a shame that Hart was so ignorant of anarchism to ignore
799
all the other forms of anarchism which, while anti-capitalist, were not
800
communist.
801
802
As has been seen, Hart's account of the history of "anti-state"
803
liberalism is flawed. Godwin is included only by ignoring his views on
804
property, views which in many ways reflects the later "socialist" (i.e.
805
anarchist) analysis of Proudhon. He then discusses a few individuals
806
who were alone in their opinions even within the extreme free market
807
right and all of whom knew of anarchism and explicitly rejected that
808
name for their respective ideologies. In fact, they preferred the term
809
"government" or "state" to describe their systems which, on the face of
810
it, would be hard to reconcile with the usual "anarcho"-capitalist
811
definition of anarchism as being "no government" or simply
812
"anti-statism." Hart's discussion of individualist anarchism is equally
813
flawed, failing to discuss their economic views (just as well, as its
814
links to "left-wing" anarchism would be obvious).
815
816
However, the similarities of Molinari's views with what later became
817
known as "anarcho"-capitalism are clear. Hart notes that with
818
Molinari's death in 1912, "liberal anti-statism virtually disappeared
819
until it was rediscovered by the economist Murray Rothbard in the late
820
1950's" ["Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition:
821
Part III", Op. Cit., p. 88] While this fringe is somewhat bigger than
822
previously, the fact remains that the ideas expounded by Rothbard are
823
just as alien to the anarchist tradition as Molinari's. It is a shame
824
that Rothbard, like his predecessors, did not call his ideology
825
something other than anarchism. Not only would it have been more
826
accurate, it would also have lead to much less confusion and no need to
827
write this section of the FAQ! It is a testament to their lack of
828
common sense that Rothbard and other "anarcho"-capitalists failed to
829
recognise that, given a long-existing socio-political theory and
830
movement called anarchism, they could not possibly call themselves
831
"anarchists" without conflating of their own views with those of the
832
existing tradition. Yet rather than introducing a new term into
833
political vocabulary (or using Molinari's terminology) they preferred
834
to try fruitlessly to appropriate a term used by others. They seemed to
835
have forgotten that political vocabulary and usage are path dependent.
836
Hence we get subjected to articles which talk about the new "anarchism"
837
while trying to disassociate "anarcho"-capitalism from the genuine
838
anarchism found in media reports and history books. As it stands, the
839
only reason why "anarcho"-capitalism is considered a form of
840
"anarchism" by some is because one person (Rothbard) decided to steal
841
the name of a well established and widespread political and social
842
theory and movement in the 1950s and apply it to an ideology with
843
little, if anything, in common with it.
844
845
As Hart inadvertently shows, it is not a firm base to build a claim.
846
That anyone can consider "anarcho"-capitalism as anarchist simply flows
847
from a lack of knowledge about anarchism -- as numerous anarchists have
848
argued. For example, "Rothbard's conjunction of anarchism with
849
capitalism," according to David Wieck, "results in a conception that is
850
entirely outside the mainstream of anarchist theoretical writings or
851
social movements . . . this conjunction is a self-contradiction." He
852
stressed that "the main traditions of anarchism are entirely different.
853
These traditions, and theoretical writings associated with them,
854
express the perspectives and the aspirations, and also, sometimes, the
855
rage, of the oppressed people in human society: not only those
856
economically oppressed, although the major anarchist movements have
857
been mainly movements of workers and peasants, but also those oppressed
858
by power in all those social dimensions . . . including of course that
859
of political power expressed in the state." In other words, anarchism
860
represents "a moral commitment" which Rothbard's position is
861
"diametrically opposite" to. [Anarchist Justice, p. 215, p. 229 and p.
862
234]
863
864
It is a shame that some academics consider only the word Rothbard uses
865
as relevant rather than the content and its relation to anarchist
866
theory and history. If they did, they would soon realise that the
867
expressed opposition of so many anarchists to "anarcho"-capitalism is
868
something which cannot be ignored or dismissed. In other words, a
869
"right-wing" anarchist cannot and does not exist, no matter how often
870
sections of the right try to use that word to describe their ideology.
871
872
The reason is simple. Anarchist economics and politics cannot be
873
artificially separated. They are intrinsically linked. Godwin and
874
Proudhon did not stop their analysis at the state. They extended it the
875
social relationships produced by inequality of wealth, i.e. economic
876
power as well as political power. To see why, we need only consult
877
Rothbard's work. As noted in the [6]last section, for Rothbard the key
878
issue with the "voluntary taxationists" was not who determined the
879
"body of absolute law" but rather who enforced it. In his discussion,
880
he argued that a democratic "defence agency" is at a disadvantage in
881
his "free market" system. As he put it:
882
883
"It would, in fact, be competing at a severe disadvantage, having
884
been established on the principle of 'democratic voting.' Looked at
885
as a market phenomenon, 'democratic voting' (one vote per person) is
886
simply the method of the consumer 'co-operative.' Empirically, it
887
has been demonstrated time and again that co-operatives cannot
888
compete successfully against stock-owned companies, especially when
889
both are equal before the law. There is no reason to believe that
890
co-operatives for defence would be any more efficient. Hence, we may
891
expect the old co-operative government to 'wither away' through loss
892
of customers on the market, while joint-stock (i.e., corporate)
893
defence agencies would become the prevailing market form." [Power
894
and Market, p. 125]
895
896
Notice how he assumes that both a co-operative and corporation would be
897
"equal before the law." But who determines that law? Obviously not a
898
democratically elected government, as the idea of "one person, one
899
vote" in determining the common law all are subject to is
900
"inefficient." Nor does he think, like the individualist anarchists,
901
that the law would be judged by juries along with the facts. As we note
902
in [7]section F.6.1, he rejected that in favour of it being determined
903
by "Libertarian lawyers and jurists." Thus the law is unchangeable by
904
ordinary people and enforced by private defence agencies hired to
905
protect the liberty and property of the owning class. In the case of a
906
capitalist economy, this means defending the power of landlords and
907
capitalists against rebel tenants and workers.
908
909
This means that Rothbard's "common Law Code" will be determined,
910
interpreted, enforced and amended by corporations based on the will of
911
the majority of shareholders, i.e. the rich. That hardly seems likely
912
to produce equality before the law. As he argues in a footnote:
913
914
"There is a strong a priori reason for believing that corporations
915
will be superior to co-operatives in any given situation. For if
916
each owner receives only one vote regardless of how much money he
917
has invested in a project (and earnings are divided in the same
918
way), there is no incentive to invest more than the next man; in
919
fact, every incentive is the other way. This hampering of investment
920
militates strongly against the co-operative form." [Op. Cit., p.
921
125]
922
923
So if the law is determined and interpreted by defence agencies and
924
courts then it will be done so by those who have invested most in these
925
companies. As it is unlikely that the rich will invest in defence firms
926
which do not support their property rights, power, profits and
927
definition of property, it is clear that agencies which favour the
928
wealthy will survive on the market. The idea that market demand will
929
counter this class rule seems unlikely, given Rothbard's own argument.
930
In order to compete successfully you need more than demand, you need
931
sources of investment. If co-operative defence agencies do form, they
932
will be at a market disadvantage due to lack of investment. As argued
933
in [8]section J.5.12, even though co-operatives are more efficient than
934
capitalist firms lack of investment (caused by the lack of control by
935
capitalists Rothbard notes) stops them replacing wage slavery. Thus
936
capitalist wealth and power inhibits the spread of freedom in
937
production. If we apply Rothbard's argument to his own system, we
938
suggest that the market in "defence" will also stop the spread of more
939
libertarian associations thanks to capitalist power and wealth. In
940
other words, like any market, Rothbard's "defence" market will simply
941
reflect the interests of the elite, not the masses.
942
943
Moreover, we can expect any democratic defence agency (like a union) to
944
support, say, striking workers or squatting tenants, to be crushed.
945
This is because, as Rothbard stresses, all "defence" firms would be
946
expected to apply the "common" law, as written by "Libertarian lawyers
947
and jurists." If they did not they would quickly be labelled "outlaw"
948
agencies and crushed by the others. Ironically, Tucker would join
949
Bakunin and Kropotkin in an "anarchist" court accused to violating
950
"anarchist" law by practising and advocating "occupancy and use" rather
951
than the approved Rothbardian property rights. Even if these democratic
952
"defence" agencies could survive and not be driven out of the market by
953
a combination of lack of investment and violence due to their "outlaw"
954
status, there is another problem. As we discussed in [9]section F.1,
955
landlords and capitalists have a monopoly of decision making power over
956
their property. As such, they can simply refuse to recognise any
957
democratic agency as a legitimate defence association and use the same
958
tactics perfected against unions to ensure that it does not gain a
959
foothold in their domain.
960
961
Clearly, then, a "right-wing" anarchism is impossible as any system
962
based on capitalist property rights will simply be an oligarchy run by
963
and for the wealthy. As Rothbard notes, any defence agency based on
964
democratic principles will not survive in the "market" for defence
965
simply because it does not allow the wealthy to control it and its
966
decisions. Little wonder Proudhon argued that laissez-faire capitalism
967
meant "the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own
968
property over those who own nothing." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
969
Demanding the Impossible, p. 259]
970
971
References
972
973
1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html
974
2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html
975
3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html#secf61
976
4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html#secf61
977
5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF1.html
978
6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF7.html#secf72
979
7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF6.html#secf61
980
8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj512
981
9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF1.html
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1